Thorfinn

Very interesting. So if they use the same criteria for loading external mods, they must do an initial pass to find all those with TerraGen characteristics, load those, then the JSON patch loaders, repeat until you get to mods which have only recipes? That could well be. Pretty sure that for testing purposes, I was using no mods at all that affected worldgen. Thinking about it, I think they all were JSON patches. Even my own personal mod that had a few extra blocks also had JSON patches, so everything would have been the same priority. One quick way to test, I suppose, would be to create a mod pair, one that creates a new block, one that adds a recipe for that block. Maybe that's why Expanded Foods was split up the way it was?

I'm just going by what the log files say the load order is. It's reporting alphabetical order of things that have no dependencies, etc. Who knows, it may well be lying to us. Probably it's plotting with the communists to overthrow everything good and wholesome in the world. The link to all the source code is in the modding section on the official wiki. You have a heck of a way to say, "Hi!"

You don't need to get so defensive. Personally, I think it's a terrible idea for the base game, but it would be a fun change of pace as a mod. This is the kind of idea which legitimately is what (I understand) @CastIronFabric wants to avoid -- changing from a mostly freeform sandbox to a progression game where the devs gatekeep how you play the game. If you could keep the tech tree sufficiently flat, and minimize the effects of RNG and gameplay style, it could be fun. But if it requires exploration from someone who is primarily interested in building, or vice versa, where in order to progress, an explorer must chisel 1,000 blocks? Or has to kill 500 levels of rusties?

36-24-... never mind.

Yeah, I used to get a chuckle out of it, too, @LadyWYT. Considered adding flaming arrows. Says something about my personality, maybe. Have not tried it in the last several versions, and never was very interested in cheesing it, so other than noting it is a thing, I spent no time on it.

What I'd add to @CastIronFabric's suggestion is to turn your view distance up as high as you and your hardware can tolerate. It's not that unusual IME to be able to see an outcrop with view distance of 1536 from atop a ladder wherever you build your base. [EDIT] I've never tried it, but from the description, the Farseer mod will let you see at distances your hardware cannot render.

I never thought of that. Have you tried doing temporal storms by lighting backfires? IME, setting them on fire is almost pointless. It takes way too long for them to die. About the only good thing about it is they generally run towards water, and you can hit them from behind with impunity because putting out the fire is the higher priority action. But I can see it being useful for higher level spawns, unless their drops get nerfed because they are on fire, even if you took them out.

Strictly speaking, he's right. It's not this game. It could be this game, sure, if the devs decided to go that route. But at present, it is not.

I use 3rd when I'm evading shivers or bears, but otherwise, not so much. Maybe it's just too many hours in 1st, but I don't find 3rd helps me find ore or discern the best path at all.

I think you could fairly easily gate things through blueprints. Look how the glider is done, then add that to specific items or blocks. But I'm not sure how easy it would be to not have the locked items in the handbook until they have been unlocked. At present, the book is built at load time, but maybe you could change crafting so that if one of the items in the grid is a blueprint, it rebuilds the book? I don't even know how long it takes to build. If it took a minute or two, would the wait be worth it?

Assuming I didn't dream this, I think this was fixed in 1.22.

Keep in mind you need only 50% glass on your roof...

Used to be. Stopped making greenhouses in, I think, 1.19, but, yeah, that was the only way to grow early crops in cold starts, unless you happened to spawn close to a glacier.

You can get rid of the islands. It just takes a lot of pickaxes. There's almost certainly a way to do it in worldedit, but it's likely to be tedious repeating it as many times as you'd have to do it on anything above a minimum-sized world. You could try editing landforms.json and getting rid of anything that has "small islands" in the description. Or set the weight to something tiny, so they still exist, but are rare.

Keep in mind that the easier you make hunting, the less reason there is to bother with animal husbandry. It's already hard to justify the time and resources involved, as there is enough protein on just predators to keep a handful of players topped up.

Don't underestimate @LadyWYT's recommendation of gambeson. Between that and choosing your battles, and @vinnland's recommendation of learn to dodge hits, that will get you through, well, everything in the game so far.

For the love of Pete, no! Revealed preference, even though credited to Paul Samuelson, is considered one of the most important economic insights of all time. It is the explicit underpinning of supply and demand, for example. Basically, it's that a person's actions are the true measure of his valuations, not his verbal proclamations. Does a man truly like Pepsi more than Coke if, when given the choice, and all else equal, he orders Coke? As applies here, Tyron's actions, writing code to randomize the spawn around a point, argues very strongly that he truly preferred random over the much easier fixed spawn, even though it required extra effort. At the time, he placed a higher value on variable spawn points. If he had done it the other way around, all we could say is that at the time, he didn't value the difference enough to make writing the extra code worthwhile. If despite my best efforts, you still don't understand revealed preference, please read up on it. The Wiki is unnecessarily complicated because economists have a deep seated need to have their field thought of as hard science, so everything has to be quantified and measured and parameterized, in order to be able to take the derivative and find local minima and maxima, but skip all that worthless dreck. If you understand the summary and the first paragraph under Definition and Theory, you are good. This is the most straightforward youtube I found in a single search. For this discussion, all you need to understand is the part up to "What the **** Bill?"

Again, no. That is not my logic. Clearly a language barrier. Feel free to express your discontent. But, seriously, how many posts does it take to say, "Spears have been nerfed too much. I'd suggest doing X." Except he did, It would have been the most obvious thing in the world, and probably the easiest, to just have drifters appear from the portal if that's what Tyron wanted. He wouldn't have had to make a code block to randomize the spawn point. Why he did as he did is a matter of speculation, that he did as he did is not. He's already weighed in on which he preferred at that point, by adding extra time and effort to select the radius method.

@RogueVali, I agree with you. And even sympathize somewhat if one has a recent enough experience with something that is particularly annoying, and it makes the tone of the post, um, strident. If one is brainstorming, a discussion thread makes perfect sense. If one is already set in his opinion, a poll is more useful. BTW, I really appreciate the effort you made to get rid of the colloquialisms and texting shortcuts, some of which I still don't know what they mean, as they appear to mean multiple things depending on context, and adopt the style that was the norm here when you showed up.

Not unwarranted. Just not something that should go on multiple pages saying the same exact thing. Saying spears are now too weak or prospecting is too hard should take a couple posts, tops. Maybe a half-dozen more if people misunderstand what you are saying. Would hardly surprise me if there's a language barrier. I try to avoid colloquialisms, but catch myself having done so from time to time, like I just did in the previous clause. Though "catch" in that context is probably common enough usage that it's widely understood. In any event, threads like that make it hard to keep track of how many people hate some new feature because if you are not actively participating, it's easy to lose track of whether this is someone's repeat post or this is a new person who also thinks the same. It gives the superficial appearance that something is vastly more unpopular than it really is. Sure. Again, most people, including the devs, are smart enough to be able to figure out what you are saying in a post or two, maybe a couple more if people misunderstood what you were suggesting and need clarifications. I can't speak for others, but that's why I often do exactly what I I'm denouncing -- otherwise there would be 100 posts from 3 people, making it seem as if it is far more popular than it really is. Same thing happens on ModDB. People mistake long-standing mods with 50 releases as being more popular than they really are. Yes, maybe there are 10,000 total downloads, but a large share of those are almost certainly the same people simply downloading the update. I doubt Tyron is fooled, and properly uses the change in number of downloads as a rough guide to whether a given idea is gaining or losing popularity.

I'd give it a whirl. FWIW, there is a lot of anti-RNG sentiment. Instead of purely randomized drops, I'd strongly suggest you incorporate in-game date, advancement, exploration, time since unlocking the prereq tech, something, into the roll, so that regardless of how poor your luck may be, at some point the next loot vessel has a 100% chance of a tech whose prereqs have been met. [EDIT] Unless you want to read some really naughty words, I'd also suggest that it not be too grindy. Some may think nothing of going through 100 ruins or panning 200 pieces of bony soil, others, not so much.

I'm pretty sure I never said that. It's not true, that's for sure. Changing damage on spears, for example. What I meant to convey is that their decisions are exactly that -- theirs to make. Obviously they don't object to feedback. Saraty even responded recently to say they agreed they have over-nerfed spears. Tyron said a while back they over-nerfed healing, particularly WRT the RA. But at the end of the day, it's their decision. If I don't like it, well, I can adapt or figure out something constructive to do about it rather than beat on fellow gamers.

I laid several out in a post a few before that one. Sorry about the interchanging person there. Not my intention, and didn't catch it earlier. But these are just a few of the options you have.

How do you have any idea what I like? Are you one of the voices in my head? But I was really asking about the flip side. When have I said, "The devs made a crappy decision here and must change this to suit my preferences immediately!"

The story locations take care of that for you. If all you have learned is combat with exploits, you are in for a rude awakening. I think I'd do something similar in procedural ruins so the RA is not a complete surprise. But maybe no placed blocks and 10x structural points for all blocks in the ruin. You can still dig your pits, but it's going to be a much bigger commitment in time, maybe in tool durability, than it is in caverns.